latest user's comments

So, the thing is, you are trying to enforce a purely subjective morality with no actual metrics for achieving it. You are floating vague terms with nothing backing them up. You are nothing more than a moral busybody that wants to foist your petty worldview on everyone else, rather than debating and expanding your ideas. The closest we can possible get to an objective morality is adherence to liberal principles, which is mutually exclusive with the authoritarian collectivism you are advocating. You are not the arbiter of what is moral and immoral, and communism does not provide a sound moral framework regardless.

The property the communists are talking about is ANY property. Land, commodities, provisions, all of it belongs to the collective, not the individual. Do not try to change the definition of it, your special homebrew brand of communism is simply wishful thinking born of ignorance of history and philosophy. You are demonstrating no comprehension of anything I have said.

aight, nevermind, i'm just gonna go, i kinda need to get some sleep and i don't think you understand much about what you're trying to critique and i don't wanna have to try to explain to you some shit that took me a good two years to finally understand, like i could, but i don't have the time nor do i have hope for you

And they didn't adhere to every single tenet of communism, since there were still states

that's like, a part of communism is that isn't any states

a transitory state in marxist-leninism, like those, would be considered socialist, which they didn't even reach, they were mostly state capitalists as there was still currency and there was also still property owned by the state, so like... i mean... they couldn't have been socialists...

How are the rights disregarded? Don't you mean the motives? The only motives of the individual that are sacrificed are those that are deemed immoral, like those that kill people.

The in-group/out-group dichotomy is like... a part of fucking everything dude... Like man, you'd really make a good hegelian. I really gotta recommend reading the Phenomology of Spirit, you'd really like it. While he may have influenced all of this, hegel was pretty conservative so you'd also like his political views.

No, I will not tell him that, because those states WERE communist. They just ran into the exact same issue any communist state would, that the so called 'vanguard of the proletariat' will NEVER give up power. They still adhered to every single tenant of communism.

Socialism is cancer, even the ideology. It deprives a person of their individuality for the sake of the collective and it's fucking disgusting.
Those were and still are the communist regimes of the world. That is communism, that is all it will ever be.
Communism relies on a huge, overbearing, controlling government because the ideal of depriving people of their possessions and right to be free individuals and act as they please rather than in the interests of everyone around them requires control.
A society with no money and government is anarchism.

"Communism relies on a huge, overbearing, controlling government because the ideal of depriving people of their possessions and right to be free individuals and act as they please rather than in the interests of everyone around them requires control."

That is literally the opposite of communism, where are you even getting this idea of communism from? Like... what?

And how does it deprive a person of their individuality? Doesn't a capitalist society deprive people of their individuality by forcing people to earn money to buy basic necessities? Complete freedom of the individual is impossible, you can never achieve a total state of freedom. You can come closer, and communism and anarchism are what promote that. With the dissolution of the government and the oppressive ideological state apparatuses that exist within our modern society, you can achieve better personal freedom. You are no longer held down by certain limits that are placed by the capitalist system, and that are inherent in the capitalist system for it to function, as in the circulation of capital. This is literally the application of hegelian logic, like it isn't hard man.

wow that's easy to argue against, those aren't all communist nor were they even close, the soviet union was maybe the closest to achieving at least true socialism, but they reached only state capitalism, and that's probably why a ton of leftist intellectuals criticized the soviet union INCLUDING the frankfurt school, because they didn't do what they said they were gonna do, and in fact only made the government stronger

lets go over the definition of communism shall we, and it is: A society with no class distinction, no money, and no government. So, yeah.

Socialism is cancer, even the ideology. It deprives a person of their individuality for the sake of the collective and it's fucking disgusting.
Those were and still are the communist regimes of the world. That is communism, that is all it will ever be.
Communism relies on a huge, overbearing, controlling government because the ideal of depriving people of their possessions and right to be free individuals and act as they please rather than in the interests of everyone around them requires control.
A society with no money and government is anarchism.

"Communism relies on a huge, overbearing, controlling government because the ideal of depriving people of their possessions and right to be free individuals and act as they please rather than in the interests of everyone around them requires control."

That is literally the opposite of communism, where are you even getting this idea of communism from? Like... what?

And how does it deprive a person of their individuality? Doesn't a capitalist society deprive people of their individuality by forcing people to earn money to buy basic necessities? Complete freedom of the individual is impossible, you can never achieve a total state of freedom. You can come closer, and communism and anarchism are what promote that. With the dissolution of the government and the oppressive ideological state apparatuses that exist within our modern society, you can achieve better personal freedom. You are no longer held down by certain limits that are placed by the capitalist system, and that are inherent in the capitalist system for it to function, as in the circulation of capital. This is literally the application of hegelian logic, like it isn't hard man.

>any intellectuals
>anyone that speaks against the state
>anyone that attempts to keep property
>anyone that attempts to better their lot in life
>any political opponents
>any undesirable

Just like in every single other communist society. It even happens on a small scale. This is the nature of collectivism. It necessitates creating an in-group,which is made up of the people who toe the party line in every aspect of their life, and the out-group, which is ANYBODY that doesn't fit in perfectly. Anything can be justified in service of the in-group, and anything can be justified in opposition to the out-group. I do not condone this. it is abhorrent and vile. It is literally the cause of every single problem humanity has had. All the religious wars, all the feuds, all the racism and slavery, it's caused by collectivist ideas.

Identity politics is when the only thing that matters about someone, socially or otherwise, is their race, gender, or nationality. We do not actually live in a world governed by identity politics, at least not in the US. Not yet. Europe does, though, and before this recent presidential election we were on track to succumbing here too.

"anyone that attempts to keep property" - you better understand what kind of property all the communists are talking about, because some kind of property is immoral in that, property of another human being and other kind of property is perfectly fine like your toothbrush

"anyone that attempts to better their lot in life" - The entire point of communism is that people are able to reach their full potential without the expense of exploting others, and that's something shared by all other anti-authoritarian leftist ideologies except maybe anarcho primitivism

all the others follow under the other two

If there is an "in-group" and an "out-group", it isn't communism, as simple as that.

So, the thing is, you are trying to enforce a purely subjective morality with no actual metrics for achieving it. You are floating vague terms with nothing backing them up. You are nothing more than a moral busybody that wants to foist your petty worldview on everyone else, rather than debating and expanding your ideas. The closest we can possible get to an objective morality is adherence to liberal principles, which is mutually exclusive with the authoritarian collectivism you are advocating. You are not the arbiter of what is moral and immoral, and communism does not provide a sound moral framework regardless.

The property the communists are talking about is ANY property. Land, commodities, provisions, all of it belongs to the collective, not the individual. Do not try to change the definition of it, your special homebrew brand of communism is simply wishful thinking born of ignorance of history and philosophy. You are demonstrating no comprehension of anything I have said.

aight, nevermind, i'm just gonna go, i kinda need to get some sleep and i don't think you understand much about what you're trying to critique and i don't wanna have to try to explain to you some shit that took me a good two years to finally understand, like i could, but i don't have the time nor do i have hope for you

And they didn't adhere to every single tenet of communism, since there were still states

that's like, a part of communism is that isn't any states

a transitory state in marxist-leninism, like those, would be considered socialist, which they didn't even reach, they were mostly state capitalists as there was still currency and there was also still property owned by the state, so like... i mean... they couldn't have been socialists...

How are the rights disregarded? Don't you mean the motives? The only motives of the individual that are sacrificed are those that are deemed immoral, like those that kill people.

The in-group/out-group dichotomy is like... a part of fucking everything dude... Like man, you'd really make a good hegelian. I really gotta recommend reading the Phenomology of Spirit, you'd really like it. While he may have influenced all of this, hegel was pretty conservative so you'd also like his political views.

No, I will not tell him that, because those states WERE communist. They just ran into the exact same issue any communist state would, that the so called 'vanguard of the proletariat' will NEVER give up power. They still adhered to every single tenant of communism.

Yes, alive, and were the dominant political force in the US until six days ago. So they are actually valued pretty fucking highly by a whole lot of people. Have you even spoken to someone from these social justice/feminist think tanks? Utter insanity let me tell you. It's even worse in Canada and Europe as a whole.

I have to admit that I don't know too much about post-structuralism. I haven't learned about it yet, but nearly all the rest of the garbage to come out of Frankfurt is disgusting.

Critical Theory is a neo-Marxist and neo-Kantian political and social philosophy, along with basically everything else to come out of the Frankfurt school. The entire point of it is to reshape society in a Marxist/Kantian image by simply berating anything that doesn't fit into that framework. They CALL this double-bind criticism, but it's just marginalization and ridicule. It's a philosophy of using sophistry to bully and dominate people. The post-modernist version is even worse, because it doesn't even attempt to defend its bullshit. It simply expects to be accepted, ironically, without critical examination. It's so stupid, unsound, and non-functional that it wasn't even relevant when it was a contemporary philosophy, and yet it's now being used as a framework for sociology and education. Honestly, it seems more like a thought experiment that got out of hand when someond with too little wisdom took it more seriously than they should have.

The people I am talking about are the Millennials and SJWs that were radicalized in western academia and have internalized these ideas and will never change their minds about them.

The primary issue with the Frankfurt School of Thought is that all their ideas, even the sort of good one, are collectivist in the extreme, and as such necessarily create an in-group and an out-group. This is the folly of collectivism, you will always end up dehumanizing the opposition. I do not consider this to be acceptable.

Sargon is wrong about some stuff and is a dick, but he's far from wrong about what these ideologies are, what sort of power they have in the modern world, and where they come from.

jesus if only, if fucking only, that would actually probably be great, we'd be dismantling the powers of the government!

nothing you said made any sense, nor do i think any of it was even close to the truth. have you ever even read anything by the frankfurt school? or at least have you even read anything by Marx himself? or beauvoir or sartre? or probably the most relevant, anything by foucault? none of it was ever attempting to belittle others, it was to discover certain elements of society that are immoral and wrong, and if you WEREN'T part of the frankfurt school, try to figure out how to fix this. there was a moment in history where people thought "maybe some institutions of our society aren't ok" and the marxists and frankfurt school are just a progression of that thought

lets apply some dialectical thought here, by having a society based on collectivist values, you at the same promote individualists value by giving people more freedom to explore their personal desires, in ways that the modern ideological apparatus disallows, such as being an artist which is not good in capitalism due to the fact that it isn't very profitable

It's a world of identity politics and oppression caused by the collectivist authoritarianism. Same as any other 'communist' society. I have already explained the problem with collectivism and why it will always inevitably lead to atrocities.

haha boy what the fuck kind of oppression would occur under communism like what hahaha at most the people oppressed would be those that are just running around killing people, because that's sorta immoral

don't we live in a world of identity politics? like what the fuck is that? won't people forever have some sort of identity?

wow that's easy to argue against, those aren't all communist nor were they even close, the soviet union was maybe the closest to achieving at least true socialism, but they reached only state capitalism, and that's probably why a ton of leftist intellectuals criticized the soviet union INCLUDING the frankfurt school, because they didn't do what they said they were gonna do, and in fact only made the government stronger

lets go over the definition of communism shall we, and it is: A society with no class distinction, no money, and no government. So, yeah.

Socialism is cancer, even the ideology. It deprives a person of their individuality for the sake of the collective and it's fucking disgusting.
Those were and still are the communist regimes of the world. That is communism, that is all it will ever be.
Communism relies on a huge, overbearing, controlling government because the ideal of depriving people of their possessions and right to be free individuals and act as they please rather than in the interests of everyone around them requires control.
A society with no money and government is anarchism.

"Communism relies on a huge, overbearing, controlling government because the ideal of depriving people of their possessions and right to be free individuals and act as they please rather than in the interests of everyone around them requires control."

That is literally the opposite of communism, where are you even getting this idea of communism from? Like... what?

And how does it deprive a person of their individuality? Doesn't a capitalist society deprive people of their individuality by forcing people to earn money to buy basic necessities? Complete freedom of the individual is impossible, you can never achieve a total state of freedom. You can come closer, and communism and anarchism are what promote that. With the dissolution of the government and the oppressive ideological state apparatuses that exist within our modern society, you can achieve better personal freedom. You are no longer held down by certain limits that are placed by the capitalist system, and that are inherent in the capitalist system for it to function, as in the circulation of capital. This is literally the application of hegelian logic, like it isn't hard man.

>any intellectuals
>anyone that speaks against the state
>anyone that attempts to keep property
>anyone that attempts to better their lot in life
>any political opponents
>any undesirable

Just like in every single other communist society. It even happens on a small scale. This is the nature of collectivism. It necessitates creating an in-group,which is made up of the people who toe the party line in every aspect of their life, and the out-group, which is ANYBODY that doesn't fit in perfectly. Anything can be justified in service of the in-group, and anything can be justified in opposition to the out-group. I do not condone this. it is abhorrent and vile. It is literally the cause of every single problem humanity has had. All the religious wars, all the feuds, all the racism and slavery, it's caused by collectivist ideas.

Identity politics is when the only thing that matters about someone, socially or otherwise, is their race, gender, or nationality. We do not actually live in a world governed by identity politics, at least not in the US. Not yet. Europe does, though, and before this recent presidential election we were on track to succumbing here too.

"anyone that attempts to keep property" - you better understand what kind of property all the communists are talking about, because some kind of property is immoral in that, property of another human being and other kind of property is perfectly fine like your toothbrush

"anyone that attempts to better their lot in life" - The entire point of communism is that people are able to reach their full potential without the expense of exploting others, and that's something shared by all other anti-authoritarian leftist ideologies except maybe anarcho primitivism

all the others follow under the other two

If there is an "in-group" and an "out-group", it isn't communism, as simple as that.

So, the thing is, you are trying to enforce a purely subjective morality with no actual metrics for achieving it. You are floating vague terms with nothing backing them up. You are nothing more than a moral busybody that wants to foist your petty worldview on everyone else, rather than debating and expanding your ideas. The closest we can possible get to an objective morality is adherence to liberal principles, which is mutually exclusive with the authoritarian collectivism you are advocating. You are not the arbiter of what is moral and immoral, and communism does not provide a sound moral framework regardless.

The property the communists are talking about is ANY property. Land, commodities, provisions, all of it belongs to the collective, not the individual. Do not try to change the definition of it, your special homebrew brand of communism is simply wishful thinking born of ignorance of history and philosophy. You are demonstrating no comprehension of anything I have said.

aight, nevermind, i'm just gonna go, i kinda need to get some sleep and i don't think you understand much about what you're trying to critique and i don't wanna have to try to explain to you some shit that took me a good two years to finally understand, like i could, but i don't have the time nor do i have hope for you

And they didn't adhere to every single tenet of communism, since there were still states

that's like, a part of communism is that isn't any states

a transitory state in marxist-leninism, like those, would be considered socialist, which they didn't even reach, they were mostly state capitalists as there was still currency and there was also still property owned by the state, so like... i mean... they couldn't have been socialists...

How are the rights disregarded? Don't you mean the motives? The only motives of the individual that are sacrificed are those that are deemed immoral, like those that kill people.

The in-group/out-group dichotomy is like... a part of fucking everything dude... Like man, you'd really make a good hegelian. I really gotta recommend reading the Phenomology of Spirit, you'd really like it. While he may have influenced all of this, hegel was pretty conservative so you'd also like his political views.

No, I will not tell him that, because those states WERE communist. They just ran into the exact same issue any communist state would, that the so called 'vanguard of the proletariat' will NEVER give up power. They still adhered to every single tenant of communism.